LDS Doctrine: the Sources and Scope

[dianaiad]

No thanks I don’t want to believe him. It was spoken by fifth LDS President Lorenzo Snow, so you’re asking me to believe one Prophet over another.

You claimed that this couplet was scripture. There is something you NEED to understand; a very basic tenet of Mormon Doctrine…and that is…prophets are men.

They are allowed their own opinions. They are allowed to speculate. They are allowed to be WRONG from time to time, when ‘on their own time,’ and sometimes even when they are teaching and speaking. Solid, core DOCTRINE is found in the scriptures. We accept the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Pearl of Great Price and the Doctrine and Covenents as scripture, and everything else is a far distant second…and everything else can be (whisper this) a man’s opinion.

In other words, if it ain’t IN the Holy Scripture, it ain’t Holy Scripture, no matter how much our critics want it to be.

According to mrm.com (actually a Mormon website): “Besides correctly illustrating the Latter-day Saint teaching that God was once a mere mortal man, this couplet also declares that man has the potential to become God! According to LDS theology, eternal life is synonymous with godhood. In the words of LDS Apostle Bruce McConkie, ‘Thus those who gain eternal life receive exaltation … They are gods.’ (Mormon Doctrine, pg. 237).”

“McCurdy Ridge Multimedia” is a “Mormon website?” I think that this would come as a rather big surprise people who supply ‘computer based training’ to Canadian government accountants.

You can read through the whole article at mrm.org/lorenzo-snow-couplet but I find it questionable that a central belief in LDS faith is not understood by its own prophet. and no, I’m not saying this little quote proves the entire LDS religion false. But it certainly is a factor.

OH!!! You mean the MORMON RESEARCH MINISTRY??? You are honestly claiming that one of the most blatant and virulent ANTI-Mormon sites on the planet is a MORMON website? Didn’t you bother hitting the ‘about’ button?

That’s a little like claiming that www.chick.com is a Catholic site.

I think I see part of the problem.

fyi I like this for an explanation of the Mystery of the Holy Trinity, but you can find many at catholic.com/library/Trinity.asp: “But in the one true God and Trinity it is naturally true not only that God is one but also that he is a Trinity, for the reason that the true God himself is a Trinity of Persons and one in nature. Through this natural unity the whole Father is in the Son and in the Holy Spirit, and the whole Holy Spirit, too, is in the Father and in the Son. None of these is outside any of the others; because no one of them precedes any other of them in eternity or exceeds any other in greatness, or is superior to any other in power” (The Rule of Faith 4 [c. A.D. 523).

Could you answer my other questions? I’m getting offline but I’ll check back and see if there is a satisfactory reply later and I’ll respond too. Try backing up your answers next time, I’m a logical person.

Good logic requires correct premises. Trying to use logic to reconcile inaccurate information is rather like trying to swim laps in a sand dune; the most important requisite is missing.
[/quote]

 

[dianaiad]

The contemporaneous historical writings of the Early Church Fathers are remarkably consistent, and they don’t support your assertion. Do you have evidence that backs up your assertion, or is the basis for Mormonism nebulous conspiracy theories?

What, my assertion that Catholics teach that public revelation ceased upon the death of the last apostle? Where is there any writing by anybody that claims otherwise?

In other words, sir, where is the scripture written after that? Because that’s what scripture IS; the written form of public revelation from God.

 

[1holycatholic]

What, my assertion that Catholics teach that public revelation ceased upon the death of the last apostle? Where is there any writing by anybody that claims otherwise?

In other words, sir, where is the scripture written after that? Because that’s what scripture IS; the written form of public revelation from God.

That’s not what I wrote. The historical writings of the Early Church Fathers didn’t change with the death of the last apostle. The apostolic faith exists in Christ’s Catholic Church. The various doctrines held by the LDS over time have absolutely no basis in history.

 

[dianaiad]

That’s not what I wrote. The historical writings of the Early Church Fathers didn’t change with the death of the last apostle. The apostolic faith exists in Christ’s Catholic Church. The various doctrines held by the LDS over time have absolutely no basis in history.

That is circular indeed, sir, I didn’t claim that the writings of the NT changed after they were written…

although at least in one case they did.

That pesky johanine comma keeps rearing it’s head here…

 

[1holycatholic]

That is circular indeed, sir, I didn’t claim that the writings of the NT changed after they were written…

:yawn:

That’s not relevant. The faith didn’t change. We aren’t a “people of the book.”

There is absolutely no historical evidence for Mormonism prior to Joseph Smith.

 

[dianaiad]

:yawn:

That’s not relevant. The faith didn’t change. We aren’t a “people of the book.”

There is absolutely no historical evidence for Mormonism prior to Joseph Smith.

What really isn’t relevent is your demand that I prove a point that I didn’t claim…but that you brought up.

…and there’s no historical evidence for Jesus Christ prior to Jesus Christ, either…because Jesus wasn’t born until He was born. Your point is, well…it makes absolutely no sense.

 

[Returning_Home]

1. I had assumed you would have been familiar with the following teaching of the Savior:

John 10:33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.
34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

So it would seem you think the Savior was saying some strange thing about pagan gods by using the passage from Psalms to make His point. I disagree wholeheartedly.

Clearly you don’t know what the words of savior actually meant within the proper context. Before you call someone else to the carpet, you ought to make sure you’re right, which you clearly are not.

The Jews were geting ready to kill him and said they were going to do so not because of anything he did, but because they thought he was falsely claiming to be God. Jesus’ response was something along the lines of: “Oh, you guys telling me that I’m not who I am must mean that you have god-like powers of deduction, right? You guys are the blasphemers because I am exactly of whom the Word of God refers to.” He was being a little sarcastic in his response because through his miracles and wonders, he’d demonstrated exactly who he was.

“Gods” in the text can mean false gods or idols, of those who judge and/or condemn others falsely, or be used with ire, as in this example.

1. Yes, in the pre-mortal council in Heaven. That was a council–the Father talking to the Son. That is what a council means.

There’s still no evidence yet put forth to show any such nonsensical lodge meeting between a bunch of moldy false gods.

1. Indeed, of course you know LDS don’t consider “Satan a god” (how long were you LDS? three days?), but the situation described by John shows that there was an “accuser” of “brethren” and that he “accused them before our God day and night.”

That shows there was verbal interaction going on among “brethren” and that Michael the archangel was involved and others were involved. The verbal interaction is a form of “council”, and the eventual outcome is that the dragon was cast out of Heaven.

I agree with your assessment here, but God casting Satan to the Pit for his arrogance in no way implies your point.

1. Here is the picture: God and Christ are the Gods in council. Michael is there (not as a god, but as the archangel. Lucifer is there (as an angel of light before he rebels). Lucifer rebels against the council. There is “war in heaven.” Lucifer is cast down to earth.

You have yet to prove this assertion because there’s no support for any such council, Biblical or otherwise.

Sorry.

 

[Pahoran]

Romans 1. Ps. 18 (19 in your Bibles)

The heavens declare…the firmament “sheweth forth”…

God reveals Himself in nature, through His observable Creation. This is what we mean by natural theology. We can learn about God by way of reason (philosophical truth) based on natural revelation.

God reveals Himself to the Church, through Scripture, and this is revelation that could never be discovered by reason contemplating nature alone. It is therefore “supernnatural”. Above reason and requires not reason to believe, but faith.

This was why I said above that Pahoran believes in natural theology and so do you and so soes everybody. They just don’t draw the distinctions as clearly as Catholics tend to do. And in any case, this thread is about supernatural sources of revelation.

Hi Rory,

welcome to the thread. It’s good to see you.

I was actually wondering wether 1Holy had that verse in mind. You may be aware that there is a similar passage in The Book of Mormon:

Alma 30: 44b
The scriptures are laid before thee, yea, and all things denote there is a God; yea, even the earth, and all things that are upon the face of it, yea, and its motion, yea, and also all the planets which move in their regular form do witness that there is a Supreme Creator.

However, neither in this passage, nor in Psalms, nor in the two of them together, do I find the following:

• That believers are obliged to start studying philosophy in order to better understand God and divine things; or
• That believers are obligated to accept the conclusions of philosophers as binding in matters of faith.

Both of which appear to be what 1Holy assumes. To Latter-day Saints, the “clink of a chain of syllogisms” is less reassuring than it is distracting.

For us, the real deal is learning what God has revealed and what He does now reveal, not what the doctors of philosophy think.

Regards,
Pahoran

 

[1holycatholic]

What really isn’t relevent is your demand that I prove a point that I didn’t claim…but that you brought up.

…and there’s no historical evidence for Jesus Christ prior to Jesus Christ, either…because Jesus wasn’t born until He was born. Your point is, well…it makes absolutely no sense.

I’m glad that you agree that there is no historical evidence for Mormonism prior to Joseph Smith. He couldn’t restore what never existed so he fabricated the syncretist religion of Mormonism in the early 1800’s.

 

[Returning_Home]

That is circular indeed, sir, I didn’t claim that the writings of the NT changed after they were written…although at least in one case they did.

It doesn’t matter because the BOM does that for you. Since you’re LDS, it’s safe to assume that you believe that the BOM is factual, and we all know that it claims that the Bible is missing many ‘plain and precious things’ which fits in with Mormonism’s claims of being a ‘restoration.’

That said, can you tell me the reason that we have major changes in the BOM? For example, like this:

“These records shall make known to all kindreds, tongues, and people, that the Lamb of God is the Eternal Father and the Savior.” (BOM, 1830, p.32)

“These records shall make known to all kindreds, tongues, and people, that the Lamb of God is *the Son of *the Eternal Father and the Savior.” (BOM, 1 Nephi 14:30)

How could God possibly not understand or know his own nature? After all, he didn’t get it right in the frist edition of the BOM, did he?

 

[PaulDupre]

1) I had assumed you would have been familiar with the following teaching of the Savior:

John 10:33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.
34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

So it would seem you think the Savior was saying some strange thing about pagan gods by using the passage from Psalms to make His point. I disagree wholeheartedly.

Context, Parker, context! You switched quotes but didn’t switch context (I’m sure you weren’t being dishonest by doing that.

In the passage from John that you quoted (out of context) Jesus is speaking to Jewish leaders, who were very familiar with the psalms. John 10:34 is an allusion to Psalm 82:6, which allusion would be readily understood by them. Let’s look at the psalm, which provides the context for Jesus’ statement.

Psalm 82

A psalm of Asaph.

1 God presides in the great assembly; he gives judgment among the gods:

Who are these “gods”? Divine beings? No, they are judges over Israel, rulers who carry the authority of God (hence they are called “gods” with a small g). These judges happen to be abusing their authority. Here is the judgement: God says:

2 How long will you defend the unjust and show partiality to the wicked?

3 Defend the cause of the weak and fatherless; maintain the rights of the poor and oppressed.

4 Rescue the weak and needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked.

5 They know nothing, they understand nothing. They walk about in darkness; all the foundations of the earth are shaken.

Now the Lord God reminds the unjust judges of their awesome responsibility and warns them of their fate:

6 **I said, ‘You are gods; you are all sons of the Most High.’

7 But you will die like mere men; you will fall like every other ruler**.

Now the psalmist invokes God’s wrath and judgement.

8 Rise up, O God, judge the earth, for all the nations are your inheritance

Obviously, this has nothing whatsoever to do with a council in the pre-existence or a meeting of divine beings. or anything but a severe scolding of unjust judges.

But you knew that already, because you and I have had this same exchange more than once before. Yet you keep on trotting out this tired old Mormon canard. What’s next, two sticks? I guess I’ll need to take you off ignore long enough to see your answer.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Given that you guys think the family is utterly disolved upon death, I think your objection, here, is disengenuous. Of course, you MIGHT want to add this to the list of questions you claim have complete answers in your faith tradition: if marriage is disolved upon death, how IS a family supposed to be together?

No we don’t think families will be utterly dissolved upon death. We don’t believe we will be producing spirit children and as perfected human beings our relationships will also be perfected. As a result the dual purpose of marriage, procreation and unity, will no longer be needed in heaven. The relationships we’ve formed though, those will continue on in heaven.
How does being married enable people to be together in heaven? Are you forbidden from being with people who are not your family in heaven? Or maybe many would choose not to be with their spouse if there were no marriage, making it somewhat more of an obligation?

 

[Pahoran]

Context, Parker, context! You switched quotes but didn’t switch context (I’m sure you weren’t being dishonest by doing that.

You really ought not to project like that, Paul.

In the passage from John that you quoted (out of context) Jesus is speaking to Jewish leaders, who were very familiar with the psalms. John 10:34 is an allusion to Psalm 82:6, which allusion would be readily understood by them. Let’s look at the psalm, which provides the context for Jesus’ statement.

Who are these “gods”? Divine beings? No, they are judges over Israel, rulers who carry the authority of God (hence they are called “gods” with a small g).

I’m sorry, but that’s merely an assumption. A pretty poor one too, since biblical Hebrew doesn’t have upper and lower case letters.

Your dogmatic assertion here is actually a controversial scholarly opinion. You have presented it as though it were a settled fact. (I’m sure you weren’t being dishonest by doing that. )

These judges happen to be abusing their authority. Here is the judgement: God says:

Now the Lord God reminds the unjust judges of their awesome responsibility and warns them of their fate:

Now the psalmist invokes God’s wrath and judgement.

Obviously, this has nothing whatsoever to do with a council in the pre-existence or a meeting of divine beings. or anything but a severe scolding of unjust judges.

But you knew that already, because you and I have had this same exchange more than once before. Yet you keep on trotting out this tired old Mormon canard. What’s next, two sticks?

That’s right. So Jesus would never refer to this passage as if it vindicated Him claiming to be the Son of God.

Except that, umm, He did.

John 10:
33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.
34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

How should this read in the Dupre Revised Version?

“35 If he called them judges, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?”

Now why doesn’t that work, exactly?

Or are you going to accuse Jesus of relying upon “this tired old Mormon canard?”

Regards,
Pahoran

 

[PaulDupre]

dianaiad:

Given that you guys think the family is utterly disolved upon death…

Another of the big Mormon lies. They know it isn’t true, but oh, how they love to say it.

 

[ParkerD]

Context, Parker, context! You switched quotes but didn’t switch context (I’m sure you weren’t being dishonest by doing that.

In the passage from John that you quoted (out of context) Jesus is speaking to Jewish leaders, who were very familiar with the psalms. John 10:34 is an allusion to Psalm 82:6, which allusion would be readily understood by them. Let’s look at the psalm, which provides the context for Jesus’ statement.

Who are these “gods”? Divine beings? No, they are judges over Israel, rulers who carry the authority of God (hence they are called “gods” with a small g). These judges happen to be abusing their authority. Here is the judgement: God says:

Now the Lord God reminds the unjust judges of their awesome responsibility and warns them of their fate:

Now the psalmist invokes God’s wrath and judgement.

Obviously, this has nothing whatsoever to do with a council in the pre-existence or a meeting of divine beings. or anything but a severe scolding of unjust judges.

But you knew that already, because you and I have had this same exchange more than once before. Yet you keep on trotting out this tired old Mormon canard. What’s next, two sticks? I guess I’ll need to take you off ignore long enough to see your answer.

Paul,
I’ll ignore your posts after this, and will be quite happy if you do the same. I have not once felt you showed an understanding of the Bible in your posts, and this case is no exception. Bye.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Paul,
I’ll ignore your posts after this, and will be quite happy if you do the same. I have not once felt you showed an understanding of the Bible in your posts, and this case is no exception. Bye.

Most Catholics feel the same when you present your “understanding” of the bible, but they are not ignoring you, just sayin’

 

[zaffiroborant]

Given that you guys think the family is utterly disolved upon death,
PaulDupre;6981724:

Another of the big Mormon lies. They know it isn’t true, but oh, how they love to say it.

.

And of course Dianaiad has been here long enough to know better.
An aside I ended up on-line looking at LDS because of 2 sets of pugnacious missionaries who presented this view of my belief. The second time (set) really ticked me off, all the synonyms for pugnacious (aggressive, contentious, irritable, belligerent, combative, antagonistic, argumentative, bellicose, quarrelsome) plus the phrase “in your face” applied to this pair. The only thing missing was arrogance, which was present in abundance.

 

[ParkerD]

Most Catholics feel the same when you present your “understanding” of the bible, but they are not ignoring you, just sayin’

Zaffiroborant,
I think I figured that out long ago as a participant in this forum, but thanks for pointing it out.

Of course they’re not going to agree with pretty much anything I write. I wouldn’t have expected them to.

 

[RebeccaJ]

And of course Dianaiad has been here long enough to know better.
An aside I ended up on-line looking at LDS because of 2 sets of pugnacious missionaries who presented this view of my belief. The second time (set) really ticked me off, all the synonyms for pugnacious (aggressive, contentious, irritable, belligerent, combative, antagonistic, argumentative, bellicose, quarrelsome) plus the phrase “in your face” applied to this pair. The only thing missing was arrogance, which was present in abundance.

…and the reason I stopped going to all the LDS family blessings, baptisms, missionary farewells, etc. I can’t take sitting there listening to this sort of thing.

 

[lax16]

lax
When you called the bible a Catholic book, it was clear (to me) you took responsibility for alot more than pulling together the completed Holy Scripture of other writers.

It is definitely a Catholic assembled book, and the effort by our ancestors is much appreciated.

Todd - when did I say that?